Walter Ellis, a former feature writer for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, worked as a foreign correspondent for 15 years, mainly in Europe. Born in Belfast, he now lives in New York and France. He believes in the European Union in much the same way that most Anglicans believe in God – an excellent idea, to be encouraged despite all evidence to the contrary. His latest novel, The Caravaggio Conspiracy, is published by the Lilliput Press. .

We need a referendum on Europe – but first, we have a glorious opportunity to create the sort of Europe we want

“Cameron says there will probably have to be a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, but not yet," I wrote. "Liam Fox and the One Hundred Group say we need it now.

"Cameron is right. Liam Fox and the Tory 100 are wrong." I went on to describe how Europe was starting to get its act together, and expanded on the joys of political union.

But then I changed my mind. Instead, I decided to examine what it is about the British that makes them so unsympathetic to the idea of a united Europe.

Is it because Britain is an island state? Does the mere fact that 20 miles of sea flow between Dover and Calais mean that a sense of connection with the mainland is impossible? If so, it is despite a long, intertwined history.

The ancient Britons were Celts, from somewhere in continental Europe (no one seems quite sure where). The Anglo-Saxons were Germanic tribes who arrived following the departure of the Romans, who had governed the place successfully for the best part of 500 years. The Danes were next, settling whole chunks of the country before being defeated, days before the arrival of the Normans, who spoke French but were half-Viking in origin. All these peoples are part of who we are. We are Europe's mongrels.

And the English, as they became, were no slouches themselves when it came to conquering. The Angevin Empire, established by Henry II, controlled vast tracts of France from the 12th to the 15th centuries, as well as southern Scotland, Wales and half of Ireland – all taken by force. Thereafter, English armies intervened constantly in whichever dynastic disputes arose on the other side of the Channel, convinced that they alone had the right to decide who should prevail in Europe’s affairs.

But imagine for a moment European history seen through French eyes, or German, or Spanish, or Italian. Do these former great powers have any less claim to Europe’s story than the British? Are they less patriotic, less proud, less determined to proclaim their culture? I don’t think so.

Instead, in the face not only of their own long histories but of the growth and consolidation of power elsewhere on the globe, they, and the rest of the EU, have decided to declare themselves a single family, believing that, together, they can create a benign reprise of the golden centuries when Europe reigned supreme.

I shouldn’t exaggerate. The European Union is not set on world domination. It has no military ambition whatsoever – which is one of the reasons, I suspect, why so many Brits despise it. Instead, its central goal is to build a safe environment and a strong, centralised economy that works for its people and allows individuals the freedom to get on with their lives.

True, the precise form of co-operation that has so far evolved is a touch boring and less obviously democratic that most of us would wish. The European Commission is the worst example of this. The suggestion currently doing the rounds, that the Commission should become more powerful, not less, with the Council of Ministers as a kind of senate to the Brussels-based government, is a terrible idea. Governments ought not to be appointed. That is fundamental. They should be elected by the people. Insistence on this has to be the keynote of the British position. I would like to see a redefinition of the Commission’s role, so that it becomes much more of a civil service for the new Economic and Political Union, and less of an interventionist agency.

Instead of a beefed-up Commission, what I would like to see is a more powerful European Parliament, stripped of its largely rhetorical and petty revisionist function, which monitors what is happening in the Council and comes up with proposals of its own based on what is being said in members’ constituencies.

Another useful addition to the democratic mix would be a directly elected European Senate with the power to appoint the Council President, confirm Commissioners and European justices and conduct inquiries into scandal and abuse. Such a body, separate from the Council and unconnected to legislation, could also mediate between Brussels and national capitals to ensure the preservation of what in America are called states’ rights.

Finally, I would like to see the President of the Council (a position to which Tony Blair reportedly still aspires), elected by senators from among candidates known both for their integrity (which would exclude Blair) and for their record in office (likewise).

In his Telegraph article, which many, apparently, consider deliberately opaque, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to get reforms in place before voting on them. To me, this makes sense. Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and the rest now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to influence European structures in advance of their creation. They should not blow it.

After that, there should be a referendum. If we're going to vote, we need to be clear what it is we are voting for, or against. Europe, for its part, should be aware that if it wants Britain on board (as well as other proud nation states), it must first offer concrete assurances on the preservation of important aspects of national culture and identity.

I stand for a United Kingdom inside a United Europe. But, in or out, it's the people’s choice. Voters need to be consulted and their decision has to be binding. If we can agree on nothing else, let’s at least agree on that.